Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucke et al. (US 2022/0305965) in view of Jung et al. (11,273,733).
Regarding claim 1, Lucke et al. disclose a device 10 for adjusting a position of a vehicle seat 1, the device comprising: a first side frame and a second side frame mounted to a pair of seat rails, respectively; a seat cushion frame operably connected to the first and second side frames (see figure A below); a support plate 12 configured to connect the first side frame and the second side frame to each other; a first gearbox 13 hinged to one end portion of the support plate (at 22); a second gearbox 14 hinged to another end portion of the support plate (at 22); a first adjustment device 13.1 having an upper end portion hinged to one front end portion of the seat cushion frame and having a lower end portion forwardly and rearwardly movably inserted and fastened to the first gearbox; a second adjustment device 14.1 having an upper end portion hinged to another front end portion of the seat cushion frame and having a lower end portion forwardly and rearwardly movably inserted and fastened to the second gearbox; a base frame (see figure A below) configured to connect the first gearbox and the second gearbox to each other; and a double-axis motor 30 for tilt control mounted to the base frame and connected to the first gearbox and to the second gearbox so as to transmit rotational power to the first and second gearboxes.
However, Lucke et al. disclose the first adjustment device is a first lead screw.
Instead, Jung et al. disclose the first adjustment device is a first lead screw 50.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Jung et al. and use lead screw in the invention of Lucke et al. because it is precise, efficient and inexpensive.
Regarding the limitations of the second adjustment device is a second lead screw, it appears the limitation is a mere duplication of the first lead screw.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to any number of screws to prevent any damages, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Lucke et al. fail to disclose the one front end portion of the seat cushion frame has mounted to the one front end portion a first hinge bracket 20 to which the upper end portion of the first lead screw is hinged.
Jung et al. disclose the one front end portion of the seat cushion frame has mounted to the one front end portion a first hinge bracket to which the upper end portion of the first lead screw is hinged.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Jung et al. and use a hinge bracket with the seat cushion in the invention of Lucke et al. because it is efficient and inexpensive.
Regarding the limitations of the second hinge bracket, it appears the limitation is a mere duplication of the first hinge bracket.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to any number of hinge brackets to prevent any damages, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Lucke et al. disclose one output portion of the motor 30 is connected to an input portion of the first gearbox via a first rotation transmission shaft 13.3 and another output portion of the motor is connected to an input portion of the second gearbox via a second rotation transmission shaft 14.3, and wherein the first and second rotation transmission shafts are flexible cables (para 0040 discloses flexible shafts which is considered a cable).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 9, Lucke et al. disclose opposite front end portions of the seat cushion frame are connected to each other via a connection pipe (see figure B below) and the opposite rear end portions of the seat cushion frame are connected to each other via a connection pipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B
Regarding claim 13, Lucke et al. disclose a vehicle seat comprising the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Lucke et al. disclose a vehicle comprising the device of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucke et al. in view of Jung et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Susko (12,179,636).
Regarding claim 2, Susko discloses the seat cushion frame 40 has opposite rear end portions hinged to rear end portions of the first and second side frames 100, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Susko and hingedly connect the rear part of the seat frame with the side frames in the invention of Lucke et al. for the purpose of accommodating users of all size and shape.
Regarding claim 3, Lucke et al. disclose at one side position of an upper surface of the support plate, a first support bracket (see figure A above) to which the first gearbox is hinged is mounted.
Regarding claim 4, Lucke et al. disclose at another side position of an upper surface of the support plate, a second support bracket (see figure A above) to which the second gearbox is hinged is mounted.
Regarding claims 10, Susko discloses a height adjustment device 56 mounted to the rear end portions of the seat cushion frame and to the rear end portions of the first and second side frames, and configured to raise or lower the seat cushion frame, wherein the height adjustment device 56 comprises: a first height adjustment link 136 having an upper end portion hinged to one rear end portion of the seat cushion frame and having a lower end portion hinged to a rear end portion of the first side frame 100; a sector gear formed at a front portion of the upper end portion of the first height adjustment link; a height adjustment motor 132 mounted to the one rear end portion of the seat cushion frame; and a pinion (see claim 6) mounted to an output shaft of the height adjustment motor and engaged with the sector gear, wherein the upper end portion of the first height adjustment link has formed therethrough a curved slot 144 configured to limit a vertical movement range of the seat cushion frame, and the one rear end portion of the seat cushion frame has a guide pin 140 protruding therefrom and movably inserted into the curved slot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Susko and hingedly connect the rear part of the seat frame with the side frames in the invention of Lucke et al. for the purpose of allowing users of all shape and size to adjust the seat height with minimum effort.
Lucke et al. as modified with Susko fail to disclose a second height adjustment link having an upper end portion hinged to another rear end portion of the seat cushion frame and having a lower end portion hinged to a rear end portion of the second side frame.
However, the limitations appear to be a duplication of the height adjustment device 56 of Susko. Susko discloses that any apparent modifications are available without departing the scope of the invention. In this instance, the duplication of the height adjustment device 56 in Susko will not depart from the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to any number of height adjustment device in order to reduce stress, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights